tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Please help to fix outdated SUBST blocks

On 05.05.2020 01:16, Greg Troxel wrote:
Roland Illig <> writes:

On 04.05.2020 20:54, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
I'm really, really annoyed by this attitude. We still have month old
packages failing due to inflating the already huge
number of broken packages due to the OpenSSL fiasco. Can we please stop
adding more unncessary breakage and get the numbers down into a sensible
range for at least one mainstream platform? The current signal-to-noise
ratio hides too many problems already.

I agree that having the stricter shell portability check generates more
packages that fail to build.  The point is that before, they succeeded
to build but under wrong assumptions.  I prefer to have binary packages
without these easy-to-detect bugs.

I think Joerg's point is that the stricter shell checks should have been
done in a way that was basically

   variable to opt in

   bulk build while opted in to fix all the new issues

   then, make it default

and I also think this would be preferable.   While I share your concern
about undefined and buggy behavior, we've been living with it, and
pkgsrc users are not served by withdrawing packages - only by fixing the

I just added a CHECK_PORTABILITY_EXPERIMENTAL, which obviously defaults
to "no".

This means that in the default configuration, even with
PKG_DEVELOPER=yes, there will be no further breakage from potential
shell portability problems in and similar files.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index